Comparison between two widely used laboratory methods in BRAF V600 mutation detection in a large cohort of clinical samples of cutaneous melanoma metastases to the lymph nodes.

aimsThe study compares detection rates of oncogenic BRAF mutations in a homogenous group of 236 FFPE cutaneous melanoma lymph node metastases, collected in one cancer center. BRAF mutational status was verified by two independent in-house PCR/Sanger sequencing tests, and the Cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test.

resultsThe best of two sequencing approaches returned results for 230/236 samples. In 140 (60.9%), the mutation in codon 600 of BRAF was found. 91.4% of all mutated cases (128 samples) represented p.V600E. Both Sanger-based tests gave reproducible results although they differed significantly in the percentage of amplifiable samples: 230/236 to 109/143. Cobas generated results in all 236 cases, mutations changing codon V600 were detected in 144 of them (61.0%), including 5 not amplifiable and 5 negative in the standard sequencing. However, 6 cases positive in sequencing turned out to be negative in Cobas. Both tests provided us with the same BRAF V600 mutational status in 219 out of 230 cases with valid results (95.2%).

conclusionsThe total BRAF V600 mutation detection rate didn't differ significantly between the two methodological approaches (60.9% vs. 61.0%). Sequencing was a reproducible method of V600 mutation detection and more powerful to detect mutations other than p.V600E, while Cobas test proved to be less susceptible to the poor DNA quality or investigator's bias. The study underlined an important role of pathologists in quality assurance of molecular diagnostics.